Gravity. Is it really a pulling force?

Gravity. Is it really a pulling force?

WHAT is the evidence that gravity is a pulling force? Nothing. Nothing at all. (I'm asking experimental or any other STRONG evidence which prove the pulling nature of Gravity.) Did you know a better evidence?

An apple falls to the ground. Therefore, it is stated, the Earth pulls - Sir Isac Newton: The Universal law of Gravitation. And with that the evidence is exhausted.
However, the apple will likewise fall if the force does not pull it down, but pushes it down. To satisfy this latter condition, we need the assumption that space is not empty, but is filled with gravity. This does not seem such a fantastic idea today if we remember that cosmologists recently presumed that the Universe is filled with dark energy.

It is obvious that the Universe is filled with electromagnetic radiation, and the (vacuum) space is assumed to be filled with Higgs bosons. Bosons are particles which form totally-symmetric composite quantum states. The spin-statistics theorem states that bosons have integer spin. Bosons are the only particles which can occupy the same state as one another. All elementary particles are either bosons or fermions.
Gauge bosons are elementary particles which act as the carriers of the fundamental forces: photons (probably NOT an elementary particle, mediates the electromagnetic force), gluons (mediates the strong nuclear force), W-and Z bosons (mediates the weak nuclear force). Numerous problems of cosmologists would be solved if gravity were not regarded as a pulling force. The idea of pushing gravity is not a recent one: it reaches back as far as Georges-Louis Le Sage (1724-1803). If gravity is a pushing force, mass will not emit, but absorb gravitational waves.

1. Let us consider the recently discovered accelerating movement of distant galaxies. With pulling gravity, this seems impossible to explain, but if we consider gravity as a property of space, which would like to compress everything, the accelerating movement become logical as this compressing force would remain unresisted at the edge of the Universe: no pushing force acts from outside, so the pushing force of the Universe will accelerate the most outlying galaxies. No assumption of any antigravitational effect is necessary.

2. The problem of singularity, which arises only with the pulling gravity model, will also be avoidable. Let us consider the Earth, for example. As an object moves closer to the Earth, the gravitational force becomes higher. This is true as long as the Earth is regarded as a point. However, the Earth is not a point. In theory, the object can pass below the surface, towards the centre of the Earth. The cause of the gravitational force is not a single point, but the whole mass of the Earth, which at the centre is in equilibrium, so no gravitational force is acting at the centre of the Earth.

According to the pulling gravity model, the density at the centre of a black hole would become infinite and the mathematical consequence would be singularity. It appears more logical, therefore, that the pulling force does not become infinite by large as we go toward the centre of a black hole, but, on the contrary, decreases. Moreover, with the pushing gravity model, there is no need for the singularity concept, because the pressure at the centre of a black hole depends on the nearly constant gravitational field of the Universe, so gravity does not increase infinitely.

3. With the pushing gravity model, the mystery would be solved of why no matter or radiation can leave the event horizon of a black hole, but all kinds of matter can still be pulled in. How can any force come out if nothing can come out? This problem would not arise with the pushing gravity model, because gravity then streams inwards, and the force is also directed inwards.

4. It could similarly solve the mystery of why the larger planets emit considerably more heat than they receive from the Sun. The surplus energy emitted should be generated by the planets themselves, but radioactivity or heating by tidal forces do not seem to offer sufficient explanation of the excess heat radiation. It appears simpler to conceive that the planets probably gain their surplus energy by the absorption of gravitational radiation.

What is "Fortnight"

What is "Fortnight"

"Fortnight" is a contraction of "fourteen nights." In the US "two weeks" is more commonly used. I always thought fortnight was a night spent inside a fort, possibly in a cellar.


A smaller unit of time is a 'jiffy' which is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second. So when people tell you they will be 'back in a jiffy', you just know they are lying because that's just not physically possible.


Speaking of time, if the sun stopped shining suddenly, it would take eight minutes for people on earth to be aware of the fact. Of course, when it does stop shinning, it will be followed by a really bright flare that will wipe us off the face off the earth. In fact, the face of the earth itself will be wiped off. Bet that's one situation that even cockroaches won't survive.


On a related note, light travels at the rate of 186,200 miles a second. Now someone please invent a car made of light.


While we are on the subject of time, space, continuum and more importantly dates, any month that starts on a Sunday will have a Friday the 13th in it. Now isn't that an amazingly useless piece of information. Unless of course, that's the day the sun suddenly stops shining. That would make it a very important day.


And if you've got any more time left, a bathometer is an instrument for indicating the depth of the sea beneath a moving vessel. And you thought it was supposed to measure how long it takes to take a bath? You use a watch for that.

Chandrayaan-1 sends images of moon's coldest, darkest craters

Chandrayaan-1 sends images of moon's coldest, darkest craters

Using a Nasa radar flying aboard India's Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, scientists are getting their first look inside the moon's coldest and darkest craters.

The Mini-SAR instrument, a lightweight, synthetic aperture radar, has passed its initial in-flight tests and sent back its first data, Nasa said.

The images show the floors of permanently-shadowed polar craters on the moon that aren't visible from Earth. Scientists are using the instrument to map and search the insides of the craters for "water ice".

Earth's magnetic field impacts climate

Earth's magnetic field impacts climate

The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published on Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.

"Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics," one of the two Danish geophysicists behind the study, Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark, told the Videnskab journal.

He and his colleague Peter Riisager, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), compared a reconstruction of the prehistoric magnetic field 5,000 years ago based on data drawn from stalagmites and stalactites found in China and Oman.

The results of the study, which has also been published in US scientific journal Geology, lend support to a controversial theory published a decade ago by Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who claimed the climate was highly influenced by galactic cosmic ray (GCR) particles penetrating the earth's atmosphere.

Svensmark's theory, which pitted him against today's mainstream theorists who claim carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming, involved a link between the earth's magnetic field and climate, since that field helps regulate the number of GCR particles that reach the earth's atmosphere.

"The only way we can explain the (geomagnetic-climate) connection is through the exact same physical mechanisms that were present in Henrik Svensmark's theory," Knudsen said.
"If changes in the magnetic field, which occur independently of the earth's climate, can be linked to changes in precipitation, then it can only be explained through the magnetic field's blocking of the cosmetic rays," he said.

The two scientists acknowledged that CO2 plays an important role in the changing climate, "but the climate is an incredibly complex system, and it is unlikely we have a full overview over which factors play a part and how important each is in a given circumstance," Riisager told Videnskab.